Politics & Government
The Fundamental Flaw in the Framingham City Charter
The City Council has the power to block all future charter changes. That cannot stand.
On July 20, 2023, the Framingham Charter Review Committee held its first meeting on its journey to produce a recommended set of changes to the City Charter for voters to consider. For details of the committee, see:
Find out what's happening in Framinghamfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
One of the remarkable issues discussed in that first meeting was what happens once the Charter Review Committee settles on its final set of recommended changes. In the original Charter Commission effort, the new charter, once approved by the Charter Commission was sent straight to the voters for a YES/NO vote in its entirety, scheduled for April 4, 2017. On that day the YES vote prevailed, and the town became a city on January 1, 2018. It was that simple.
Find out what's happening in Framinghamfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
However, that process does not apply when the charter is reviewed.
Inexplicably, the work product of the current Charter Review Committee will not go straight to voters, but will go to the City Council for action. Here is the governing text from the current charter:
“The committee shall, after a public hearing, file its report and recommendations with the secretary of the council, not later than the first day of May in the year following the year in which the committee is appointed. The recommendations of the committee shall appear on the council agenda for action before the fifteenth day of June in that year and, if not so scheduled by the secretary of the council, the matter shall come before the council for action at its next meeting held after the said fifteenth day of June, and no other business shall be in order until the report has been acted upon, by roll call vote. The only action before the council will be whether to place the committee’s report and recommendations before the voters for their consideration.”
It is abundantly clear that the City Council could decide not to place the committee’s report and recommendations before the voters for their consideration. What a nightmare!
The City Charter is designed to specify all aspects of city government, including the City Council amongst other things. Thus the City Charter is supposed to control the City Council.
But here the City Council is controlling the City Charter. No changes can ever be made to the City Charter without City Council approval.
This runs entirely counter to the notion that voters get to approve the charter directly, not the City Council.
It seems imperative that the Charter Review Committee prevent future possible undemocratic nightmares by changing the charter language to eliminate the City Council from the charter change decision process. This would also be consistent with the fact that City Council members are already banned from serving on the Charter Review Commission.
Following the spirit and example of the original charter process, the set of recommended charter changes should be submitted directly to city voters for their approval.
A further strong argument for the Charter Review Committee to remove the City Council as gatekeeper for charter change, runs as follows.
Imagine the City Council retains its role where it can block any charter change.
That would have a chilling effect on all proposed charter changes, as current Charter Review Committee members would be constantly asking themselves whether any proposed change would meet with City Council approval. Their recommendations could be completely distorted by that constraint.
It is unlikely in this current charter review that there will be serious adjustments to the City Council composition or powers, but imagine if in the future such changes become necessary. Then the City Council could well block charter change, to the great detriment of the city.
Finally, the Charter Review Committee should include as part of their recommendations a scheme for breaking recommended changes into separately voted pieces. Some of their changes may have strong voter support and some not, and it would be such a waste of effort to see a single package vote approach where a NO vote on the entire package of changes prevails because just one change of many did not appeal to voters.
Here is an example, which is quite realistic.
It might be that voters may approve of a charter change like the introduction of a mechanism to create neighborhood area councils but disapprove of some change to City Council oversight of filling School Committee vacancies.
I am sure the Charter Review Committee could figure out the wisest way to proceed on splitting the package of recommended changes into votable sub-packages.
Obviously, the Charter Review Committee will also make up its mind on the appropriate role for the City Council to play in charter change. The committee is composed of a good cross section of voices from the community and has a great deal of experience. Sound judgment should win the day.
Framingham is a very savvy community, and it should get to decide how it is governed, with no oversight by the City Council.
Below, I include the full section from the charter which governs the charter review process, so you have the full text, with the fundamental flaw in plain view on the last line:
“Article IX: GENERAL PROVISIONS
5. PERIODIC REVIEW OF CHARTER
In May of every year ending in three (3), the municipality shall appoint a charter review committee to review the Framingham Home Rule Charter and make report and recommendations to voters for changes to it. The committee shall consist of eleven (11) members: three (3) residents selected by the council, three (3) residents selected by the school committee, and five (5) residents appointed by the mayor. All appointees shall be voters of the municipality but shall not be elected or appointed officers or employees of the municipality. The committee shall, after a public hearing, file its report and recommendations with the secretary of the council, not later than the first day of May in the year following the year in which the committee is appointed. The recommendations of the committee shall appear on the council agenda for action before the fifteenth day of June in that year and, if not so scheduled by the secretary of the council, the matter shall come before the council for action at its next meeting held after the said fifteenth day of June, and no other business shall be in order until the report has been acted upon, by roll call vote. The only action before the council will be whether to place the committee’s report and recommendations before the voters for their consideration.”
